From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <032719f26456ca28b7efc3de473af7a5@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] OT: ZFS
From: "Fco. J. Ballesteros" <nemo@lsub.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:27:11 +0200
In-Reply-To: <9fda7e62d765aa094f04d15d544a1509@vitanuova.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e35f2e90-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> that press release they insist that "neither architecture pays a
> byte-swapping tax" (which is what you're paying by using an extra
> level of indirection).

Someone has to swap them, if they don't use the same order.

> ahh, i suppose they probably mean "neither architecture pays a
> byte-swapping tax *on a filesystem created by that architecture*", in
> which case you're doing something equivalent.

I think it has to be the same thing, or a similar trick.

> could they really patent such a trivial thing?

Well, I think there are patents on even more simple things.